All Religion is Bad.

[articulett]

Perhaps it is possible to vote that religion is bad without getting sucked into your petty semantic squabbling.

I had to put TA on ignore... he makes no sense to me. Fortunately he doesn't show up in quotes very often which leads me to presume he doesn't make much sense to anyone other than himself. I know his poll has to do with him proving his moral superiority to himself, but I think he is alone in his world.

 

[The Atheist]

Perhaps it is possible to vote that religion is bad without getting sucked into your petty semantic squabbling.

I would have thought so, but apparently taking note that some good things come out of religion makes one a religious apologist.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I would have thought so, but apparently taking note that some good things come out of religion makes one a religious apologist.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say insisting to focus on those things rather than the overall negative picture makes one a religious apologist.

 

[The Atheist]

I wouldn't say that. I'd say insisting to focus on those things rather than the overall negative picture makes one a religious apologist.

Me too, which is why it quite surprised me. I venture too far the other way myself, most of the time.

 

[qayak]

[Yeah, why the hell? Would you please finally descend to answer this obvious question? Only if you can, of course.

Can you offer some evidence to show that ALL catholics who have gotten AIDS have done so through extra-, or pre-, marrital sex?

Furthermore, it is evident that millions of Catholics around the world are willing to defy papal authority and use contraceptive techniques to limit family size. If they are not willing to use such techniques to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases this suggests some other explanation than their deference to the Pope’s guidance.

What do "millions of catholics" have to do with it. If millions of Germans decided to commit suicide, would that mean you had to?

It would be nice to talk with a religious apologist, or pope lover, who had some reasoning skills.

 

[qayak]

I only raised the second question about infallibility because you said that the pope "is supposed to be infallable and cannot change course without putting that in question." Obviously, if the pope says something on a non-infallible basis, he can change course without logically bringing into question the doctrine of infallibility, because that's not how their doctrine works. But that's a secondary consideration. If you could please answer the first question, we'll be getting somewhere.

You and I are using the word "can" in two different contexts. You are talking about his ability and I am talking about his desire. You say he can change an edict where he did not invoke infallibility and I am saying he can't change his mind because it will cause him to lose face.

I have already posted the edict put out by the vatican. Instead of my posting it again, just go read my earlier post.

 

[thoth108]

Religion fills in the answers to the questions that no one can answer for you. All religions are road maps through the confusion of life, drawn by someone in the past who thought you might benefit from it. Someone was trying to help you, by leaving for you a map of what helped them get through this. In this thread I have noticed that the atheists forget that their religion is science, or rather the science of direct experience (where in all things must be proven to THEM through THEIR OWN direct experience).

I am a Taoist by religion, and my science is that of the shaman.

As for this debate, my humble opinion is:
ALL RELIGION IS GOOD - if the masses of people being born everyday had NOTHING TO GUIDE THEM in their daily affairs then what would govern societies? Let's not forget the Bell Curve while we are talking about masses of people: religion keeps societies under control, because NOT EVERYONE is smart enough for the personal responsibility required for anarchy. There needs to be a compass to guide the lost; because about 80% of those around us are just that, LOST.

Who cares what they believe in ? If we all just respected each others' religions as being equal, then it wouldn't even be a topic of debate.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As for this debate, my humble opinion is:
ALL RELIGION IS GOOD - if the masses of people being born everyday had NOTHING TO GUIDE THEM in their daily affairs then what would govern societies?

Take your pick: morality, a sense of duty, social contract, common sense, enlightened self-interest, etc. None of which require religion.

Let's not forget the Bell Curve while we are talking about masses of people: religion keeps societies under control, because NOT EVERYONE is smart enough for the personal responsibility required for anarchy. There needs to be a compass to guide the lost; because about 80% of those around us are just that, LOST.

Check out this article:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

This article examines several measures of society health (such as prevalence of STDs, teen pregnancy, etc.) compared to measures of secularity-religiosity. The often-repeated claim that even if the beliefs aren't true religion is somehow good for society doesn't hold up.

By the way, morality that is based on a system of rewards and punishments is considered by developmental psychologists to be "pre-conventional" morality--something you should grow beyond. This sounds like the type of "guidance" religion provides.

 

[articulett]

Religion fills in the answers to the questions that no one can answer for you. All religions are road maps through the confusion of life, drawn by someone in the past who thought you might benefit from it. Someone was trying to help you, by leaving for you a map of what helped them get through this. In this thread I have noticed that the atheists forget that their religion is science, or rather the science of direct experience (where in all things must be proven to THEM through THEIR OWN direct experience).

I am a Taoist by religion, and my science is that of the shaman.

As for this debate, my humble opinion is:
ALL RELIGION IS GOOD - if the masses of people being born everyday had NOTHING TO GUIDE THEM in their daily affairs then what would govern societies? Let's not forget the Bell Curve while we are talking about masses of people: religion keeps societies under control, because NOT EVERYONE is smart enough for the personal responsibility required for anarchy. There needs to be a compass to guide the lost; because about 80% of those around us are just that, LOST.

Who cares what they believe in ? If we all just respected each others' religions as being equal, then it wouldn't even be a topic of debate.

Science is not a religion. When you break your leg, you receive evidence based treatment... not prayer. Religion is about believing things to be true whether there is evidence for them or not. There is no evidence that any religion has access to "higher truths". Secular societies are better functioning than more religious societies. Evolution is a fact and some religions threaten hell if people accept that fact. Your Bell Curve reference is offensive as is your allegation that people need religion to control their behavior. Society has laws to control behavior... and other primates do too. Cooperative societies evolved before religions and are not the providence of humans. Moreover, social shunning, restrictions, and favors have long been used to encourage cooperation in groups. My dog shows loyalty, guilt, love, and never hurts anyone. This, despite no religion. Religions are not equal to science though they may all be equal to each other as far as evidence (or lack thereof) is concerned. You may think religion makes you good and moral, others might think it makes you daft and bigoted.

Atheists have a lack of belief... they don't believe in divine knowledge... your religion may have lied and caused you to confuse science is religion. This is a common lie proffered by religion and repeated ad nauseum by the brainwashed.

All of science is based on facts--the facts that are the same for everybody. The earth was a sphere even as religions were teaching otherwise. Nothing in religion is based on fact--it's all based on faith... and you are told that it's arrogant to want facts.

Faith never has been a way to know anything true. Religions have been invented again and again by men to explain that which they could not explain and to gain control over large numbers of people. Religions proffer the lie that morality comes from religion although all statistics indicate otherwise.

I agree that religions are equal... they should fight and debate each other over whose version of an afterlife is right and what the creator of the universe wants and who is more moral and what creation story is true and which of the other belief systems are damned. But scientists like mathematicians have nothing to say about any of this because there is no evidence for divine knowledge of any kind or that any kind of consciousness can exist outside of a living brain. Sure, all people think that those of their belief system are more moral than others-- but that is because their religion encourages such beliefs. And once you don't need evidence to believe stuff-- you can have all sorts of notions implanted in your "open" mind.

 

[articulett]

Religion fills in the answers to the questions that no one can answer for you. All religions are road maps through the confusion of life, drawn by someone in the past who thought you might benefit from it. Someone was trying to help you, by leaving for you a map of what helped them get through this. In this thread I have noticed that the atheists forget that their religion is science, or rather the science of direct experience (where in all things must be proven to THEM through THEIR OWN direct experience).

I am a Taoist by religion, and my science is that of the shaman.

As for this debate, my humble opinion is:
ALL RELIGION IS GOOD - if the masses of people being born everyday had NOTHING TO GUIDE THEM in their daily affairs then what would govern societies? Let's not forget the Bell Curve while we are talking about masses of people: religion keeps societies under control, because NOT EVERYONE is smart enough for the personal responsibility required for anarchy. There needs to be a compass to guide the lost; because about 80% of those around us are just that, LOST.

Who cares what they believe in ? If we all just respected each others' religions as being equal, then it wouldn't even be a topic of debate.

Yes... religion capitalizes on the oldest of manipulation memes-- the same one used for santa and chain letters.

If you believe and get others to believe, you get presents; if you fail to toe the line, bad things will happen. (All observed events must be connected in some way to who believes and how strongly and who dissents.) If good things don't happen it's because you are looking at it wrong or didn't believe enough )

So primitive. So childish. So manipulative.

 

[ceo_esq]

You and I are using the word "can" in two different contexts. You are talking about his ability and I am talking about his desire. You say he can change an edict where he did not invoke infallibility and I am saying he can't change his mind because it will cause him to lose face.

Perhaps he would lose face, but the prospect of losing face is a separate matter from calling the doctrine of infallibility into question, and you specifically suggested the latter in your earlier post. I still don't understand why. Also, now that you've clarified that you're speaking of the pope's desires, is one permitted to wonder if you have some special insight into the pope's thoughts that allows you to know that the desire to avoid losing face would prevent him from changing his mind?

I have already posted the edict put out by the vatican. Instead of my posting it again, just go read my earlier post.

If you posted a document in which the pope stated that condoms cause AIDS, I must be overlooking it, and I apologize. That said, would you mind identifying or linking the post in question?

 

[ceo_esq]

And once you don't need evidence to believe stuff-- you can have all sorts of notions implanted in your "open" mind.

That puts me in mind of another slippery slope, Chesterton's observation that once someone stops believing in God he becomes vulnerable to believing in anything. I can't say I'm particularly concerned about either slope.

 

[articulett]

Perhaps he would lose face, but the prospect of losing face is a separate matter from calling the doctrine of infallibility into question, and you specifically suggested the latter in your earlier post. I still don't understand why. Also, now that you've clarified that you're speaking of the pope's desires, is one permitted to wonder if you have some special insight into the pope's thoughts that allows you to know that the desire to avoid losing face would prevent him from changing his mind?




If you posted a document in which the pope stated that condoms cause AIDS, I must be overlooking it, and I apologize. That said, would you mind identifying or linking the post in question?

Are you trying to imply that the pope's directive against condoms is not a factor in the spread of AIDS, or just to digress?

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-08/2006-08-18-voa27.cfm?CFID=106509146&CFTOKEN=40268432

…The Catholic Church, through its hospitals and social service agencies is the primary source of health care for 25% of those people who have HIV and AIDS…. And while the Pope himself cannot know who is using condoms, he does issue guidelines. When those guidelines are followed by Catholic hospitals who refuse to give condoms or tell people at risk about the importance of condoms, that causes enormous human suffering and disease.”

http://media.www.westerncourier.com....Dont.Protect.Against.Aids.Virus-542117.shtml

The Roman Catholic Church‚ which long has been against the use of condoms during sex‚ now has resorted to flat-out lies in an attempt to wean people of the latex menace.

The church is starting a misinformation campaign claiming that condoms do not protect against the AIDS virus‚ so people shouldn't try to use them.

This is the most enraging story I've seen on the news in a long while. Is the principle of self-determination for sperm so important to the Vatican that it can happily endanger the lives of its billion-plus followers?

The church's new line‚ apparently‚ is that since the AIDS virus is so small‚ it can pass through the netting of a latex condom. This is‚ of course‚ complete ********. When used correctly - wait‚ why am I even arguing this point?

The statements in question‚ first made by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo on the British Broadcasting Corporation program "Panorama" earlier this month‚ signal a dangerous and irresponsible shift in Vatican policy concerning birth control.

Previously‚ the Vatican higher-ups only used moral arguments against condoms‚ describing them as some sort of preemptive abortion.

Now‚ they've resorted to outright lies‚ having apparently decided that dogma is more important than human life.

The Vatican advocates sexual abstinence as an alternative to condoms for stopping AIDS. Oh‚ hell‚ yes. That's much easier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

Vatican in HIV condom row
Using a condom significantly reduces the risk of contracting HIV
The Catholic Church has been accused of telling people in countries with high rates of HIV that condoms do not protect against the deadly virus.

The claims are made in a Panorama programme called Sex and the Holy City to be screened on BBC One on Sunday.

It says cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents are saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms.

The World Health Organization has condemned the comments and warned the Vatican it is putting lives at risk.

The claims come just a day after a report revealed that a young person is now infected with HIV every 14 seconds.


The statements are totally incorrect. Latex condoms are impermeable. They do prevent HIV transmission.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, around 6,000 people between the ages of 15 and 24 catch the virus every day.

Half of all new infections are now in people under the age of 25 and most of these are young women living in the developing world.

And I suppose pedophilia clergy get the pass because not all clergy are pedophiles, eh?

It's just amazing the way you try to demonize Qayak while ignoring lies and misinformation and notions proffered that end up causing actual suffering. But still-- not ALL religion is bad... so anyone who says anything gets treated with the apologist semantic game. You cover up egregious acts like all apologists to make someone who speaks out about facts look bad.

tsk tsk. I'm not fooled, and I'm not impressed. But congratulations on being like all apologists and pretending that religion is good for something while ignoring all the harms it causes and clucking over those who dare to speak out and say so. And spare me your blather... I'll put you on ignore. I find that this forum is much more enjoyable when I know who uses words to say nothing much at all-- religious apologetics and the like. Thus blustery folk who think they are more moral than those who speak the truth.

The facts are-- the pope is responsible for condom misinformation and a party in the spread of suffering due to HIV-- no matter how you spin and cover it... (and tell yourself that religion is responsible for the fine moral person you are today.)

 

[Herzblut]

Can you offer s

The topic we were discussing is this one:

With one stupid statement da papa did irrepairable damage to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

qayak! Where is your evidence?

You don't see the evidence because your head is buried up the pope's ass but it doesn't change the facts.

Please:

(1) Provide evidence ("the facts") to support your gross accusation. Alternatively, admit there is no such evidence.

(2) Apologize for your deliberate insult against me.

(3) Answer my questions. Putting forward further questions does not count as anything near an answer.

Oh, btw, I'm supporting ceo_esq who says

If you posted a document in which the pope stated that condoms cause AIDS, I must be overlooking it, and I apologize. That said, would you mind identifying or linking the post in question?

(4) Provide an official vatican document in which the pope issued this "stupid statement" that "condoms cause HIV/AIDS".

Good luck!

Herzblut

 

[ceo_esq]

Are you trying to imply that the pope's directive against condoms is not a factor in the spread of AIDS, or just to digress?

I am not implying anything. Nor do I believe that I am digressing, because I am simply following up on a statement introduced by someone else. I was asking a fairly uncomplicated question.

I fail to see why a question about the pope's alleged opinion that condoms cause AIDS should be interpreted as an assertion about the extent to which the pope's directive against condoms is a factor in the spread of AIDS.

In my own opinion, this thread would benefit from more answers to simple and relevant questions, and less speculation as to motives and meaning.

It's just amazing the way you try to demonize Qayak while ignoring lies and misinformation and notions proffered that end up causing actual suffering. But still-- not ALL religion is bad... so anyone who says anything gets treated with the apologist semantic game. You cover up egregious acts like all apologists to make someone who speaks out about facts look bad.

Stop right there. I'm not demonizing anyone, unless the meaning of that word has greatly changed without my knowledge. And you should not infer from my questions that I have ignored anything. I'm neither religious nor an apologist, and I daresay I haven't made anyone who's spoken out about facts look bad. That is almost always something that people do to themselves.

 

[RandFan]

A quick note. Yes, it is true that there are people that defy the pope. However not all do. Further, those people who do defy the pope are more likely, AIU, to be from more advanced communities. Given the very serious nature of the aids epidemic, any decrease in condom use can have very severe consequences.

If the argument is, well, people are willing to defy the pope and therefore that results in a good thing then it raises the question why have a pope at all? The proscriptions concerning reproduction are stone age myths. If they fly in the face of modern science then I suggest that humans cut the cord. If the Catholic church won't modernize to comport with the facts as we know them now then let's find something else. It simply amazes me that blind faith would cause otherwise rational people to follow the dictates of some guy who got his authority based on happenstance. Mind blowing.

 

[Herzblut]

Oh, btw, I'm supporting ceo_esq who says
...

If you posted a document in which the pope stated that condoms cause AIDS, I must be overlooking it, and I apologize. That said, would you mind identifying or linking the post in question?

I just saw that in my last post I accidently had misquoted the passage above, which is from ceo_esq, in such a way that it looks like being originated by qayak.

My apologies to both.

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

Perhaps he would lose face, but the prospect of losing face is a separate matter from calling the doctrine of infallibility into question, and you specifically suggested the latter in your earlier post.

Now, let's put my quote back into context:

"The other problem is that the pope will not retract his words. He is supposed to be infallable and cannot change course without putting that in question.

He believes his own publicity and will allow his own pride to stand in the way of what is morally right. He will allow his words to cause suffering and death rather than admit he was wrong."

If you had just read the original post, or realized that the one you quoted was simply a add on to the original, we wouldn't have had all these pages of you being wrong.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled woo.

 

[The Atheist]

The proscriptions concerning reproduction are stone age myths. If they fly in the face of modern science then I suggest that humans cut the cord.

Can you just expand upon this a little, I'm not sure what you mean. The RCC certainly has plenty of Stone Age myths, but I don't know of any regarding reproduction.

 

[qayak]

(1) Provide evidence ("the facts") to support your gross accusation. Alternatively, admit there is no such evidence.

Already done.

(2) Apologize for your deliberate insult against me.

As soon as you apologize fo rall the insults you have thrown my way.

(3) Answer my questions. Putting forward further questions does not count as anything near an answer.

Already done.

Oh, btw, I'm supporting ceo_esq who says

If ceo-esq was an athlete, you would be an athletic supporter.

(4) Provide an official vatican document in which the pope issued this "stupid statement" that "condoms cause HIV/AIDS".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?RecNum=5836